In my opinion a candidate's religion isn't much of an issue, unless they're a crazy zealot like Pat Robertson.

If a zealot in your opinion is someone who holds steadfast in their Faith. Then I am proud to be one. True Faith does not change. GOD NEVER CHANGES, so a person who is diligent in their Faith and walks uprightly is a nut? You need to re-evaluate your thinking.

This is possibly the wrong time of year to have this sort of debate, but I must defend myself there. You've either misinterpreted what I said, or twisted my words around before adding some hasty personal judgement (I'm sorry but I find it quite laughable that you think you can paraphrase my value- and belief system from one sentence I've written). Either way, what you've outlined is not my definition of a "zealot". My definition applies to someone who makes statements such as:

Quote

Every society which has embraced homosexuality -- normalized it, legitimized it, et cetera, embraced it as part of their culture -- every one of those societies has gone down in flames. And if we want to destroy the United States of America, take it down, this is the best way to do it. So the homosexuals will have managed to win what's known as a pyrrhic victory -- they may win their temporary battle, but they'll lose the war 'cause they will destroy the society, and that's happening.-Pat Robertson

Or

Quote

The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.-Pat Robertson

Or...

Quote

How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?-Yep, Pat Robertson.

How precisely is this guy not a nutcase?

What is wrong with statements like that? They're all true. This man is not a nutcase.

In my opinion a candidate's religion isn't much of an issue, unless they're a crazy zealot like Pat Robertson.

If a zealot in your opinion is someone who holds steadfast in their Faith. Then I am proud to be one. True Faith does not change. GOD NEVER CHANGES, so a person who is diligent in their Faith and walks uprightly is a nut? You need to re-evaluate your thinking.

This is possibly the wrong time of year to have this sort of debate, but I must defend myself there. You've either misinterpreted what I said, or twisted my words around before adding some hasty personal judgement (I'm sorry but I find it quite laughable that you think you can paraphrase my value- and belief system from one sentence I've written). Either way, what you've outlined is not my definition of a "zealot". My definition applies to someone who makes statements such as:

Quote

Every society which has embraced homosexuality -- normalized it, legitimized it, et cetera, embraced it as part of their culture -- every one of those societies has gone down in flames. And if we want to destroy the United States of America, take it down, this is the best way to do it. So the homosexuals will have managed to win what's known as a pyrrhic victory -- they may win their temporary battle, but they'll lose the war 'cause they will destroy the society, and that's happening.-Pat Robertson

Or

Quote

The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.-Pat Robertson

Or...

Quote

How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?-Yep, Pat Robertson.

How precisely is this guy not a nutcase?

What is wrong with statements like that? They're all true. This man is not a nutcase.

Oh ... please tell me you are joking. Do you really believe that feminism is about practicing witchcraft?

In my opinion a candidate's religion isn't much of an issue, unless they're a crazy zealot like Pat Robertson.

If a zealot in your opinion is someone who holds steadfast in their Faith. Then I am proud to be one. True Faith does not change. GOD NEVER CHANGES, so a person who is diligent in their Faith and walks uprightly is a nut? You need to re-evaluate your thinking.

This is possibly the wrong time of year to have this sort of debate, but I must defend myself there. You've either misinterpreted what I said, or twisted my words around before adding some hasty personal judgement (I'm sorry but I find it quite laughable that you think you can paraphrase my value- and belief system from one sentence I've written). Either way, what you've outlined is not my definition of a "zealot". My definition applies to someone who makes statements such as:

Quote

Every society which has embraced homosexuality -- normalized it, legitimized it, et cetera, embraced it as part of their culture -- every one of those societies has gone down in flames. And if we want to destroy the United States of America, take it down, this is the best way to do it. So the homosexuals will have managed to win what's known as a pyrrhic victory -- they may win their temporary battle, but they'll lose the war 'cause they will destroy the society, and that's happening.-Pat Robertson

Or

Quote

The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.-Pat Robertson

Or...

Quote

How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?-Yep, Pat Robertson.

How precisely is this guy not a nutcase?

What is wrong with statements like that? They're all true. This man is not a nutcase.

Oh ... please tell me you are joking. Do you really believe that feminism is about practicing witchcraft?

He has to be joking. Even if you see certain points coming from nutcases (which is hard in this case), every sane person can tell the maniacs from those with odd views. There is a marked difference.

Btw, is their anyone else who find it hard to believe that weirdos can practice computers? It is unscientific, I know, but I can't imagine someone who is basically nuts and have a twisted view of the world being modern enough to master the internet. Like sects and stuff.

In my opinion a candidate's religion isn't much of an issue, unless they're a crazy zealot like Pat Robertson.

If a zealot in your opinion is someone who holds steadfast in their Faith. Then I am proud to be one. True Faith does not change. GOD NEVER CHANGES, so a person who is diligent in their Faith and walks uprightly is a nut? You need to re-evaluate your thinking.

This is possibly the wrong time of year to have this sort of debate, but I must defend myself there. You've either misinterpreted what I said, or twisted my words around before adding some hasty personal judgement (I'm sorry but I find it quite laughable that you think you can paraphrase my value- and belief system from one sentence I've written). Either way, what you've outlined is not my definition of a "zealot". My definition applies to someone who makes statements such as:

Quote

Every society which has embraced homosexuality -- normalized it, legitimized it, et cetera, embraced it as part of their culture -- every one of those societies has gone down in flames. And if we want to destroy the United States of America, take it down, this is the best way to do it. So the homosexuals will have managed to win what's known as a pyrrhic victory -- they may win their temporary battle, but they'll lose the war 'cause they will destroy the society, and that's happening.-Pat Robertson

Or

Quote

The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.-Pat Robertson

Or...

Quote

How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?-Yep, Pat Robertson.

How precisely is this guy not a nutcase?

What is wrong with statements like that? They're all true. This man is not a nutcase.

Oh ... please tell me you are joking. Do you really believe that feminism is about practicing witchcraft?

Well, I don't know about the witchcraft part. It certainly could be true. Everyhing else he said is true, though.

In my opinion a candidate's religion isn't much of an issue, unless they're a crazy zealot like Pat Robertson.

If a zealot in your opinion is someone who holds steadfast in their Faith. Then I am proud to be one. True Faith does not change. GOD NEVER CHANGES, so a person who is diligent in their Faith and walks uprightly is a nut? You need to re-evaluate your thinking.

This is possibly the wrong time of year to have this sort of debate, but I must defend myself there. You've either misinterpreted what I said, or twisted my words around before adding some hasty personal judgement (I'm sorry but I find it quite laughable that you think you can paraphrase my value- and belief system from one sentence I've written). Either way, what you've outlined is not my definition of a "zealot". My definition applies to someone who makes statements such as:

Quote

Every society which has embraced homosexuality -- normalized it, legitimized it, et cetera, embraced it as part of their culture -- every one of those societies has gone down in flames. And if we want to destroy the United States of America, take it down, this is the best way to do it. So the homosexuals will have managed to win what's known as a pyrrhic victory -- they may win their temporary battle, but they'll lose the war 'cause they will destroy the society, and that's happening.-Pat Robertson

Or

Quote

The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.-Pat Robertson

Or...

Quote

How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?-Yep, Pat Robertson.

How precisely is this guy not a nutcase?

What is wrong with statements like that? They're all true. This man is not a nutcase.

Oh ... please tell me you are joking. Do you really believe that feminism is about practicing witchcraft?

Well, I don't know about the witchcraft part. It certainly could be true. Everyhing else he said is true, though.

You believe that feminists want to "kill their children", "become lesbians" and "destroy capitalism"? The last one is especially weird, since it is completely off topic. Do you also believe that "secular humanists" are a threat to society? That every society that has allowed homosexuality has gone down in flames is also rubbish. My country does, as many other European countries, and we're not going down in flames at all. I doubt any country has since biblical times.

In my opinion a candidate's religion isn't much of an issue, unless they're a crazy zealot like Pat Robertson.

If a zealot in your opinion is someone who holds steadfast in their Faith. Then I am proud to be one. True Faith does not change. GOD NEVER CHANGES, so a person who is diligent in their Faith and walks uprightly is a nut? You need to re-evaluate your thinking.

This is possibly the wrong time of year to have this sort of debate, but I must defend myself there. You've either misinterpreted what I said, or twisted my words around before adding some hasty personal judgement (I'm sorry but I find it quite laughable that you think you can paraphrase my value- and belief system from one sentence I've written). Either way, what you've outlined is not my definition of a "zealot". My definition applies to someone who makes statements such as:

Quote

Every society which has embraced homosexuality -- normalized it, legitimized it, et cetera, embraced it as part of their culture -- every one of those societies has gone down in flames. And if we want to destroy the United States of America, take it down, this is the best way to do it. So the homosexuals will have managed to win what's known as a pyrrhic victory -- they may win their temporary battle, but they'll lose the war 'cause they will destroy the society, and that's happening.-Pat Robertson

Or

Quote

The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.-Pat Robertson

Or...

Quote

How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?-Yep, Pat Robertson.

How precisely is this guy not a nutcase?

What is wrong with statements like that? They're all true. This man is not a nutcase.

Oh ... please tell me you are joking. Do you really believe that feminism is about practicing witchcraft?

Well, I don't know about the witchcraft part. It certainly could be true. Everyhing else he said is true, though.

It certainly could be? Geez, if he said the Green Party candidates were actually a veiled reference to being space invaders bent on intergalactic domination would you consider that as possibly being true?!?!

Pat Robertson is nuts! Not for his religious beliefs ... but because he makes ridiculous statements like "feminism = witchcraft".

In my opinion a candidate's religion isn't much of an issue, unless they're a crazy zealot like Pat Robertson.

If a zealot in your opinion is someone who holds steadfast in their Faith. Then I am proud to be one. True Faith does not change. GOD NEVER CHANGES, so a person who is diligent in their Faith and walks uprightly is a nut? You need to re-evaluate your thinking.

This is possibly the wrong time of year to have this sort of debate, but I must defend myself there. You've either misinterpreted what I said, or twisted my words around before adding some hasty personal judgement (I'm sorry but I find it quite laughable that you think you can paraphrase my value- and belief system from one sentence I've written). Either way, what you've outlined is not my definition of a "zealot". My definition applies to someone who makes statements such as:

Quote

Every society which has embraced homosexuality -- normalized it, legitimized it, et cetera, embraced it as part of their culture -- every one of those societies has gone down in flames. And if we want to destroy the United States of America, take it down, this is the best way to do it. So the homosexuals will have managed to win what's known as a pyrrhic victory -- they may win their temporary battle, but they'll lose the war 'cause they will destroy the society, and that's happening.-Pat Robertson

Or

Quote

The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.-Pat Robertson

Or...

Quote

How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?-Yep, Pat Robertson.

How precisely is this guy not a nutcase?

What is wrong with statements like that? They're all true. This man is not a nutcase.

Oh ... please tell me you are joking. Do you really believe that feminism is about practicing witchcraft?

Well, I don't know about the witchcraft part. It certainly could be true. Everyhing else he said is true, though.

You believe that feminists want to "kill their children", "become lesbians" and "destroy capitalism"? The last one is especially weird, since it is completely off topic. Do you also believe that "secular humanists" are a threat to society? That every society that has allowed homosexuality has gone down in flames is also rubbish. My country does, as many other European countries, and we're not going down in flames at all. I doubt any country has since biblical times.

Yep. I do. And he said, "has gone down in flames.", not is going down in flames. Your time will come.

In my opinion a candidate's religion isn't much of an issue, unless they're a crazy zealot like Pat Robertson.

If a zealot in your opinion is someone who holds steadfast in their Faith. Then I am proud to be one. True Faith does not change. GOD NEVER CHANGES, so a person who is diligent in their Faith and walks uprightly is a nut? You need to re-evaluate your thinking.

This is possibly the wrong time of year to have this sort of debate, but I must defend myself there. You've either misinterpreted what I said, or twisted my words around before adding some hasty personal judgement (I'm sorry but I find it quite laughable that you think you can paraphrase my value- and belief system from one sentence I've written). Either way, what you've outlined is not my definition of a "zealot". My definition applies to someone who makes statements such as:

Quote

Every society which has embraced homosexuality -- normalized it, legitimized it, et cetera, embraced it as part of their culture -- every one of those societies has gone down in flames. And if we want to destroy the United States of America, take it down, this is the best way to do it. So the homosexuals will have managed to win what's known as a pyrrhic victory -- they may win their temporary battle, but they'll lose the war 'cause they will destroy the society, and that's happening.-Pat Robertson

Or

Quote

The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.-Pat Robertson

Or...

Quote

How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?-Yep, Pat Robertson.

How precisely is this guy not a nutcase?

What is wrong with statements like that? They're all true. This man is not a nutcase.

Oh ... please tell me you are joking. Do you really believe that feminism is about practicing witchcraft?

Well, I don't know about the witchcraft part. It certainly could be true. Everyhing else he said is true, though.

It certainly could be? Geez, if he said the Green Party candidates were actually a veiled reference to being space invaders bent on intergalactic domination would you consider that as possibly being true?!?!

Pat Robertson is nuts! Not for his religious beliefs ... but because he makes ridiculous statements like "feminism = witchcraft".

In my opinion a candidate's religion isn't much of an issue, unless they're a crazy zealot like Pat Robertson.

If a zealot in your opinion is someone who holds steadfast in their Faith. Then I am proud to be one. True Faith does not change. GOD NEVER CHANGES, so a person who is diligent in their Faith and walks uprightly is a nut? You need to re-evaluate your thinking.

This is possibly the wrong time of year to have this sort of debate, but I must defend myself there. You've either misinterpreted what I said, or twisted my words around before adding some hasty personal judgement (I'm sorry but I find it quite laughable that you think you can paraphrase my value- and belief system from one sentence I've written). Either way, what you've outlined is not my definition of a "zealot". My definition applies to someone who makes statements such as:

Quote

Every society which has embraced homosexuality -- normalized it, legitimized it, et cetera, embraced it as part of their culture -- every one of those societies has gone down in flames. And if we want to destroy the United States of America, take it down, this is the best way to do it. So the homosexuals will have managed to win what's known as a pyrrhic victory -- they may win their temporary battle, but they'll lose the war 'cause they will destroy the society, and that's happening.-Pat Robertson

Or

Quote

The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.-Pat Robertson

Or...

Quote

How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?-Yep, Pat Robertson.

How precisely is this guy not a nutcase?

What is wrong with statements like that? They're all true. This man is not a nutcase.

Oh ... please tell me you are joking. Do you really believe that feminism is about practicing witchcraft?

Well, I don't know about the witchcraft part. It certainly could be true. Everyhing else he said is true, though.

You believe that feminists want to "kill their children", "become lesbians" and "destroy capitalism"? The last one is especially weird, since it is completely off topic. Do you also believe that "secular humanists" are a threat to society? That every society that has allowed homosexuality has gone down in flames is also rubbish. My country does, as many other European countries, and we're not going down in flames at all. I doubt any country has since biblical times.

Yep. I do. And he said, "has gone down in flames.", not is going down in flames. Your time will come.

Then I guess your nuts too, no offense, but believing that is just plain insane.

And on another note, Robertson is wrong regarding his "every society which has embraced homosexuality .... has gone down in flames."

First off, the ancient Greeks accepted homosexuality and I wouldn't exactly say they "went down in flames".

Secondly, most of Europe today accepts homosexuality. Oddly enough, they haven't gone down in flames. This leads to someone saying "but they will". To this I make the ridiculous statement, every society which has accepted the consumption of shellfish has gone down in flames and those which haven't yet, will.

And on another note, Robertson is wrong regarding his "every society which has embraced homosexuality .... has gone down in flames."

First off, the ancient Greeks accepted homosexuality and I wouldn't exactly say they "went down in flames".

Secondly, most of Europe today accepts homosexuality. Oddly enough, they haven't gone down in flames. This leads to someone saying "but they will". To this I make the ridiculous statement, every society which has accepted the consumption of shellfish has gone down in flames and those which haven't yet, will.

Damn! I was just about to bring up the Greeks, adn then I had to log off...

Now you look like the smart one...

Btw, the Greek, I believe, actually viewed homosexuality (or perhaps bisexuality) as more refined than heterosexuality, it was a thing for the upper class. The hero of heroes, Achilles, was homosexual, and only joined battle after his lover, Patroklos, had been killed by Hector, during the Troyan war.